Congratulations UN with your latest sanctions. North korea has ended the armistice.

[=sw=warlord]

So the UN unanimously agreed to the toughest sanctions ever imposed on North Korea yesterday, and today North Korea has announced it is ending the armistice.
Way to bloody go in trying to ensure peace! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21709917)

[Cortexian]

RIP NK.

[Higuy]

Lol.... Either they are bullshitting or were going to have another war on our hands... but I think everyone could tell who would win in that fight

[Patrickssj6]

... but I think everyone could tell who would win in that fight
LOL xD

[Zeph]

NK has two options. Neither of which point towards sustainable/winnable conflict.

Option one: Launch everything and hope it works. They supposedly have a considerable amount of short range missiles that would be able to pummel enough of the southern half of the korean peninsula. I don't know the specifics on whether SK/USA have established any sort of missile defense shield, but depending on the volume of launches, it could be nasty. Tie in the theoretical fact that their medium range missiles can deliver a nuclear payload and you run into radiological issues. North Korea's warhead yield is not large enough to rival the tiny warhead that was dropped on Hiroshima. Yeah it can vaporize a radius and cause damage from flash burns and air pressure shockwaves, but the most damage it can do would be from radiation. Up till a couple of months ago, NK's longest ranged missile would be able to strike Alaska and as far west as the UK. I think it's safe to say that now they can drop a warhead anywhere if it's not intercepted. However, that method of detection and interception has been in play since the Cold War.

Going this route, they can unleash a supposed missile hell on South Korea and probably Japan too, since they hate Japan for what it did to them in the past. They would achieve the most surprise this way, but would be in a real bind since they don't have any sort of invasion force ready to occupy attacked locations.

Option two: Begin staging an infantry invasion force, muster supply lines, and push south under a missile assault. This is their only option if they want to seriously invade the south and restart active hostilities. However, satellites and observation planes are constantly monitoring this kind of thing. The moment a ground army is spotted advancing south is the moment SK will preemptively firebomb it. A unit of F-22 is currently stationed in Japan. While I'm sure SK's F-15Es can handle NK on its own, the US providing air dominance while SK dropping every bit of ordinance it can lift in the sky isn't out of the question.


The armistice may be null at this point, but if conflict breaks out it won't escalate to war. It'll be a quick conflict that will be over before another carrier fleet can power its way over.

[Sanctus]

Zeph, North Korea doesn't possess the capabilities to fit a nuclear warhead on a missile. They can't make them small enough. And what other optima were there besides sanctions? NK is a belligerent nation, are we supposed to just let them carry on nuclear testing?

[=sw=warlord]

Part of the issue is even when NK behaves itself, nothing really happens, you can threaten a nation as much as you like but without actually giving some sort of positive incentive to behave it self, the sanctions won't make any use to anyone only make those less fortunate even less fortunate.
To make matters worse, Korea has a history of being invaded so as far as the population is concerned, the international community is just the latest set of invaders who want what they have because the population itself doesn't know how the world is outside its borders and those who find out end up with either being killed or their friends and families being sent to concentration camps.

[Zeph]

Zeph, North Korea doesn't possess the capabilities to fit a nuclear warhead on a missile. They can't make them small enough. And what other optima were there besides sanctions? NK is a belligerent nation, are we supposed to just let them carry on nuclear testing?
Yeah, why I mentioned theory. Miniaturization is what they have left to work on now.

And yes, actually. They formally exited treaties surrounding nuclear technologies a decade ago after the US claimed they were making nuclear weapons. Surprise surprise, a review of the intelligence used to stake that claim against NK showed it to be misread and grossly overrated. NK offered to rejoin the treaty in exchange for materials to build a nuclear reactor for power so they could shut down their existing small power reactor (that thing they were saying they were trying to build to begin with and the place they're making fuels and enriching materials).
For a country that is touted as a potential threat, they sure have shut down their operations for long periods of time waiting for the treaty benefits to show up.

They wanted a nuclear reactor that didn't suck to provide power to their capital.
We told them to shut down their stuff in good faith and we'd get on it.
They said they wouldn't have any power that way.
We gave them a shitload of oil saying they could use that in the mean time.
Oil ran out and they asked wtf.
Silence.
They restarted their reactor and began enrichment of fuel for their new reactor.
WEAPONS!
Yeah, we made it because you've done none of the stuff you've said you'd do because we "have a nuke in development". If we're going to pay for something we don't have, we might as well make it. But it's okay, we'll shut down everything to let you know we really want that nice reactor for power.
Yeah, you better or else we'll stop getting you aid we promised.
Yeah, it's been over ten years. We've given up on that so we're just going to go ahead and build the damn thing our self. We noticed that you said Iraq had big bad weapons and invaded them before saying we had big bad weapons as well. Yeah, we don't feel safe anymore so we're going to handle our defense with these nuclear devices now.


I'm not defending them or anything, but I understand where they're coming from. Going through high school, I was confused why we were attacking Iraq since it was Al Qaeda that attacked us. When the US said NK was secretly enriching materials, I was confused since the facility they were supposedly doing so was currently monitored by the UN. This was following a famine; why would they be doing that when they were looking for relief?

[TVTyrant]

I don't think the sanctions are a good idea, but I doubt NK will do anything. They might as well be allowing the Empire of Japan to return if they went the route of a medium range attack on the island (as they had previously threatened to do), attacking SK is a crappy idea as well since that's how you draw the ire of China and Russia as well. Any kind of nuclear strike will be countered with a really heavy handed campaign that will turn fuck ugly fucking fast. They don't have a delivery system anyways, since their weapons are too large to be fixed to any kind of short/medium range missile (they're basically where America was in 1945 and where Russia was in 1948). If they tried to use a bomber, we'd just shoot that shit down since the U.S. has SAM missile installations that are only really inferior to Russia's.
As far as the politics go, I think it shows a lot that the security council enacted it 15-0 (per the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/world/asia/north-korea-warns-of-pre-emptive-nuclear-attack.html?_r=0)). To me this means that Russia and China are feeling threatened, and since China is NK's only ally, that's pretty damn bad. Russia being unhappy is not a situation anyone wants to have happen to them, since the Russians aren't afraid of looking bad in front of everyone the way the U.S. is. Their actions in Georgia a few years ago (which I thought were justified) showed the kind of elite power and precision their military forces operate with, as well as the kind of brutality they have always fought with. Pissing off the two most aggressive and powerful nations in the world isn't something you want to do. I think this is all bluster so Un can get some of these sanctions removed, but I think the UN or at least the U.S. will call his bluff, stupidly or not.

[TVTyrant]

Also:
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/398936_484458064942783_805496944_n.jpg

[Patrickssj6]

also, guess where NK and its capital is
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Eastasia_lights.jpg/269px-Eastasia_lights.jpg

[Warsaw]

RIP NK.

Rest in Pieces. :D

[n00b1n8R]

Lol.... Either they are bullshitting or were going to have another war on our hands... but I think everyone could tell who would win in that fight
Just like how the USA won every other war they were in since WW2? :downsgun:

[DarkHalo003]

You guys are silly. We'd use an interceptor missile to stop their launch before they could do ANYTHING at all.

This sanction completely restricts luxury goods for the NK Elite, which I guess is the toughest sanction for those dickweeds. We have China backing these sanctions too, which should tell something important about the ridiculousness that is NK. China was really their only supporters and allies; even they are saying enough is enough.

Either way, I'm more worried about Iran in comparison.

The only ones who should be worried rightfully are the South Koreans, but they are prepared to deal with this as the war between the two nations had never actually ended. This situation was bound to happen eventually because NK is that unstable. What happens when we don't give them what we want? This happens.

@Zeph: Yes because you can believe a sociopath running a country that is literally bullied into thinking the world is out to get them and that their government is their savior, that they will use materials given to them to build a nuclear reactor for safe energy. Does anyone else see something totally wrong with that?

Fun fact: NK makes threats about nuclear attacks and slaughtering the world on a regular basis, reports have recorded. They did say they ended the armistice, but guys really? Do you seriously, honestly think they would have gone with peaceful solutions to end the conflicts between them and everyone else? Like I said, they only cooperated to get what they wanted and now that we refuse to spoil them they are acting out.

[Zeph]

@Zeph: Yes because you can believe a sociopath running a country that is literally bullied into thinking the world is out to get them and that their government is their savior, that they will use materials given to them to build a nuclear reactor for safe energy. Does anyone else see something totally wrong with that?

Yeah, because clearly they can't enrich materials on their own....
They weren't asking for centrifuges, aid in producing fuel, or any of that. They wanted help building a reactor for more electricity because of http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Eastasia_lights.jpg/269px-Eastasia_lights.jpg

Fuel, both for warheads and controlled reaction, is the easy part. The reactor that can be controlled, a good bit more difficult.

You'll find some interesting parallels if you try to align the timeline on the Manhattan project to NK after it formally resigned for sure.

[TVTyrant]

Just like how the USA won every other war they were in since WW2? :downsgun:
We haven't fought a war. We've struggled through a number of misguided policing actions and unilateral occupations. If we wanted to win, we would win. It's just that modern military action doesn't have a winning side. NK would be no different if we were going it basically alone again. I imagine that a smart strategist would use U.S. air force and naval forces to attack NK military installations and let the SK government handle all the infantry fighting and occupying.

[DarkHalo003]

Yeah, because clearly they can't enrich materials on their own....
They weren't asking for centrifuges, aid in producing fuel, or any of that. They wanted help building a reactor for more electricity because of http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Eastasia_lights.jpg/269px-Eastasia_lights.jpg

Fuel, both for warheads and controlled reaction, is the easy part. The reactor that can be controlled, a good bit more difficult.

You'll find some interesting parallels if you try to align the timeline on the Manhattan project to NK after it formally resigned for sure.
I find that difficult to believe. The Elite of NK horde everything to themselves. They don't want their people to have electricity on a regular basis, let alone any other modern technology. I simply don't believe they have ever had decent intentions regarding this case.

[Rainbow Dash]

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/025/0/e/little_man_syndrome_by_jollyjack-d5sno37.jpg

[=sw=warlord]

If we wanted to win, we would win. It's just that modern military action doesn't have a winning side. NK would be no different if we were going it basically alone againyes because your most advanced planes are so omnipotent.
oh wait

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/23/us-f35-grounded-cracked-engine-blade)Never mind you could just show off your vast cyber superiority.
Oh... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21515259)yeah about that... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/21/china-hacking-claims-tech-firms)

[Zeph]

yes because your most advanced planes are so omnipotent.
[URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/23/us-f35-grounded-cracked-engine-blade"]oh wait
You act as if the thing is out on the front lines. It hasn't even finished testing yet. But that's understandable because the politicians driving the militaries into buying them before they're built think they're finished front line weapons too.

Why do you think the costs per unit keep going up on something that hasn't been been finished yet?

[=sw=warlord]

You act as if the thing is out on the front lines. It hasn't even finished testing yet. But that's understandable because the politicians driving the militaries into buying them before they're built think they're finished front line weapons too.

Why do you think the costs per unit keep going up on something that hasn't been been finished yet?
Notice how I said "most advanced" not front line.

[TVTyrant]

yes because your most advanced planes are so omnipotent.
oh wait

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/23/us-f35-grounded-cracked-engine-blade)Never mind you could just show off your vast cyber superiority.
Oh... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21515259)yeah about that... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/21/china-hacking-claims-tech-firms)
Winning was traditionally based on decimating the population of your enemy and moving your own people in. That's how it worked until about 1800 or so. If we wanted to, we could saron gas cities, eradicate all forces using our military, and then start colonizing. That's what "victory" is in war. Do you want that? Nope. Do I want that? Nope. Only Russia and America have the capability for that kind of destruction, and both sides have been reluctant to do that since 1945.

[n00b1n8R]

We haven't fought a war. We've struggled through a number of misguided policing actions and unilateral occupations. If we wanted to win, we would win. It's just that modern military action doesn't have a winning side. NK would be no different if we were going it basically alone again. I imagine that a smart strategist would use U.S. air force and naval forces to attack NK military installations and let the SK government handle all the infantry fighting and occupying.

stop do not trole

[n00b1n8R]

Winning was traditionally based on decimating the population of your enemy and moving your own people in. That's how it worked until about 1800 or so. If we wanted to, we could saron gas cities, eradicate all forces using our military, and then start colonizing. That's what "victory" is in war. Do you want that? Nope. Do I want that? Nope. Only Russia and America have the capability for that kind of destruction, and both sides have been reluctant to do that since 1945.
decimating doesn't mean what you think it means :ugh:
gasing civilians is a war crime hth

the usa has been in many wars since ww2 even if they don't want to use that word. if they could have won i guess they just liked being in korea/vietnam/afganistan/iran/iraq for protracted periods because those wars police actions were so popular with the american public :allears:

[Btcc22]

Victory is defined by accomplishing your objectives. There is no 'if we wanted to' or 'that isn't what victory means'.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg


Only Russia and America have the capability for that kind of destruction

That'd explain why there's so much concern about certain activities in certain eastern nations.

[Bodzilla]

what am i reading

[Tnnaas]

Politics and Modacity.

http://i.imgur.com/a5mxota.png

Ask about their economic policies.

[TVTyrant]

decimating doesn't mean what you think it means :ugh:
gasing civilians is a war crime hth

the usa has been in many wars since ww2 even if they don't want to use that word. if they could have won i guess they just liked being in korea/vietnam/afganistan/iran/iraq for protracted periods because those wars police actions were so popular with the american public :allears:
Actually yes, I would say that's a big part of the reasoning. We suck at foreign policy and diplomacy, we have a terrible government, terrible uneducated uncivilized citizens, and a war machine built around the idea that we would have to win a fight to the death with the Soviets. We fucking suck at anything where we can't just hit the kill switch and make millions dead. But when the day comes where we can do that, hold onto your hats folks.

Not saying I advocate any of this btw.

[Tnnaas]

I caught this before the edit. (http://i.imgur.com/8ZwoCfJ.png) :-3

[DarkHalo003]

I caught this before the edit. (http://i.imgur.com/8ZwoCfJ.png) :-3
Someone had one job. ONE JOB.

[Tnnaas]

Turns out they edited the title shortly after I caught it. :v:

That thumbnail though.

[Cortexian]

We haven't fought a war. We've struggled through a number of misguided policing actions and unilateral occupations. If we wanted to win, we would win. It's just that modern military action doesn't have a winning side. NK would be no different if we were going it basically alone again. I imagine that a smart strategist would use U.S. air force and naval forces to attack NK military installations and let the SK government handle all the infantry fighting and occupying.
The USA hasn't fought anyone with a modern fighting force since WWII. I wouldn't be surprised if they struggled to get their ass in gear and suffer heavy causalities in the first ground-fights.


yes because your most advanced planes are so omnipotent.
oh wait (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/23/us-f35-grounded-cracked-engine-blade)
The tech in the F-35 is more advanced than the F-22, yes. But the F-22 is a better aircraft for it's role (air superiority), a cracked rotor blade is a fairly common occurrence and the only reason it's news is because any F-35 news is hyped news. I have a friend who's actually an aerospace engineer for the Canadian Forces, in charge of the maintenance and such of all the CF-18's at one of our larger airbases (which is still small by US standards, the point is he knows his shit). That's how I know this kind of thing is fairly common. When you build a fighter jet to push the limits of existing technology and human reaction, things become incredibly complicated and extremely high-maintenance. This "crack" was probably a hairline thing that was noticed on inspection, nothing to hype about.

[TVTyrant]

Nobody has fought anyone with a modern fighting force since WWII. I wouldn't be surprised if they struggled to get their ass in gear and suffer heavy causalities in the first ground-fights.
ftfy

[Phopojijo]

So the UN unanimously agreed to the toughest sanctions ever imposed on North Korea yesterday, and today North Korea has announced it is ending the armistice.
Way to bloody go in trying to ensure peace! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21709917)It really should not have gone on as long as it has. Remember that this is a country which immediately spends foreign aid on army and cognac.

[Cortexian]

ftfy
The difference is that USA is USA and NK is NK. NK soldiers are likely much more likely to fight harder for their glorious leader since their minds have been filled with propaganda about everyone except themselves.

[PenGuin1362]

NK Soldiers are ill-equipped and ill-fed, it would be a close repeat to our first encounter with them in the 50's (hopefully minus the ignorance around China). And the F-35 performs its role magically, but it's still no replacement for the A-10 in all its glorious redundancy.

[TeeKup]

The A-10 wont be replaced for years. I'd sooner expect a re-design with more efficient electronics and avionics and maybe slight fuselage changes than abandonment of a stellar ground-attack platform.

[TVTyrant]

The difference is that USA is USA and NK is NK. NK soldiers are likely much more likely to fight harder for their glorious leader since their minds have been filled with propaganda about everyone except themselves.
And die in droves since they are using 7.62x39 Type 56s and don't have body armor. Intelligence says they have T55s and not much better. Their air force is probably all MiG 22s at the highest. Their military will be shredded casualty wise. That said, they probably have a significantly bigger force that the U.S. has in the region and we'd probably take heavy losses and lose a lot of ground early on. One month is about as long as that would last. After that it's all A-10s and B-52s and Abrams tanks and Marines and dead North Koreans.

[TVTyrant]

The A-10 wont be replaced for years. I'd sooner expect a re-design with more efficient electronics and avionics and maybe slight fuselage changes than abandonment of a stellar ground-attack platform.
The A-10 shouldn't be replaced until we come up with a new form of air travel. It's that good. The thing is an achievement to American pigliness. All it does is burn tons of fossil fuels and fuck shit up.

[nuttyyayap]

Their air force is probably all MiG 22s at the highest. Their military will be shredded casualty wise.
MIG-29 is their best fighter. And AFAIK there is no MIG-22. But yeah, the air battle will not last long.

[PenGuin1362]

I doubt we would see a credible resistance. They lack strong organization and communication. Armor and air are almost pointless without means of direct communication and pin point targeting against an army that has that. It could happen, but given the alleged lack of commitment in their army, (suggested by these (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/03/12/38/0301000000AEN20130312002600315F.HTML) articles (http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=144783)) doubt it. It's also unlikely much will come of this anyway. NK always pisses and moans over something. The issue this does cause is now the slightest break in the tension could erupt in war. In the past we've seen NK shell the South and there was little military response other than heated words (similar to the same words being used now). But anything remotely like that now will prompt immediate and direct military action.

[=sw=warlord]

Relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVs5J_dIk9k

[Cortexian]

Lost it at "are you one?"

[TeeKup]

I should watch that show.

[=sw=warlord]

There you go;
Martinis and Medicine collection. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000HT3P5Q/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used)

[Warsaw]

The funny part here is that China is just as likely to march in and lay the smack down on NK as we are should NK actually try something.